You have a fair point Bill, but I do think we should keep things in proportion. In my country when you reach 18 you're allowed to join the army and kill people (or get killed), work as a prostitute, and go to an adult jail. All of these are potentially far more damaging to someone than nude pictures willingly made.

Of course it's totally different if the pictures are taken or posted without consent, but I don't think that's what you were asking about.

Originally Posted by billschwab

True, but at 47, I am a far different person than I was way back then. I would hate to be judged today for something innocently done when I was basically a child. Yes... from this perspective 18 is a child, but the 18 year-old in me hates me for saying that.

Anyway... knowing this and being a wiser old man, I can't wrap my mind around this absolving me from resposibility. The stakes seem so much higher these days.

As I remember, they were from a site such as Flickr… not unlike our galleries here.

Bill, the APUG galleries are very different from Flickr. Images on Flickr are searchable and viewable by the world. Images in the APUG galleries are not searchable, and are viewable only to APUG subscribers.

More broadly, I have shot literally hundreds of women. A shoot for me lasts two hours. The first hour is spent talking -- I want to know who is standing in front of my camera, and part of that discussion is how they came to work as a model. My experience has been that 99 percent of them completely understand what they are about, and what the ramifications of posing naked are. The few who do not, I educate. I've driven a few out of modeling as a result. But that was good -- they didn't belong in it anyway.

The subject you raise causes strong divisions within the feminist community. Some believe that nude work is exploitative. Others think that women ought be empowered to decide what they do with their own bodies.

For my own part, I will not shoot photographs that reduce a person to an object. FWIW, I think of my own work as portraiture. I try to find the individual in the person in front of me, even when the individual is a full-time model who lives in front of cameras.

Sanders

Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 04-11-2007 at 04:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Art, ouch! My wife Melanie is a photographer (published in Emulsion, with a show in Chicago later this summer) and a nude model, who posts nude self-portraits -- could you reword that one, please? :-)

I know, as I was typing that one, I was thinking ... hmmm ... you know I mean, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Gary Holliday

I've always mistrusted amateur photographers who use the camera to satisfy their sexual desires and it really gives photographers a bad name. " Have you shot any naked women," is the standard response from non-photographers.

This is the well known acronym amongst models - GWC - guy with camera. Again, one would not be shocked to know that many, many women find the GWC a very decent source of income. We men are so predictable, for the most part. Naked women = money out the door.

Originally Posted by billschwab

Anyway... knowing this and being a wiser old man, I can't wrap my mind around this absolving me from resposibility. The stakes seem so much higher these days.

I would disagree here too. A good friend of mine in the ad biz has this saying "There's no such thing as bad publicity. All publicity is good." Your concern for that Idol contestant BTW is an example. Just wait, she'll be on a Reality TV show, she'll have a recording, etc... She'll be a hit. Really, the concern is overstated in today's world. 20 years from now, will she regret the decision? Not for any of us to babysit an adult.

Originally Posted by SuzanneR

Come to think of it, I suppose, women like to look at nude figures, too. Male or female.

More than one thinks. I have a few women friends who see nude women images as more interesting than any other image. To them it's empowering.

Originally Posted by Sanders McNew

The subject you raise causes strong divisions within the feminist community. Some believe that nude work is exploitative. Others think that women ought be empowered to decide what they do with their own bodies.

Which brings me to my next point in all of this. Isn't this white knight - saviour from hell complex a bit paternalistic and condescending? Seriously. Take any one of several young models I know. They are smart women, who know they have a commodity - their looks. They've designed an entire business, with accessories and off-shoots, that they manage to maximize the publicity, marketing, sales and revenue of that commodity. And they do that with today modern tool - the internet - to reach out globally. They've had shoots in many places, many young men haven't even heard of, let alone visited. They've bought condos, clothes, vacations, investments, put themselves through school, etc ... All because we men will give them money to take their clothes off. Who's exploited whom?

To think young women today need our masculine protection in today's internet world, I think, is a bit antiquated.

Regards, Art. (Oh man, am I a feminist?)

Last edited by gr82bart; 04-11-2007 at 04:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.

What I'd like to know, Bill, is why you decided to upload a 30 year old photo to The Gallery? If it were a picture of a rock or tree, would you have done so?

The reason for this query is presumably your vision has evolved over 30 years. Perhaps if you had done a recent nude shot and then posted the two side-by-side to show an evolving eye it would have been an interesting juxtaposition.

But maybe, just maybe, you came across the shot - had a brief rush of the thrill you felt as an 18 y.o. taking the pic - and couldn't resist "sharing" it with us? Nothing wrong with that, BTW. Just wished I seen it before you'd taken it down!

Even though I understand that people sign a release in modeling for me, many times they will not be the type of “professional” model we all think of. In most cases they are not very experienced and are not truly professionals, but students, young people looking for a way to make some extra money, etc. They are not really thinking in terms of what is yet to come. Considering that at least here in America one’s reputation can be destroyed by something as innocent as posing naked for a photograph, is there more of a responsibility on our part as photographers when we post them to APUG and other sites?

Forgive the long post and I look forward to the thoughts of those of you working with and posting the nude form.

Bill

I dont work with nudes, but I dont think you will find a consensus among those who do that there is one best way to handle this situation. Clearly you are within your legal rights to post it, so what are you worrying about, would be one possible response from photographers a bit paranoid about having their own rights diminished. Personally I think you handled it well and I understand your discomfort. The person gave their permisssion 30 years ago, how do you know if they would do so now?

I believe I read that Jock Sturges always asks before he displays a nude photo in a new work, if some time has passed since the work was created. This seems entirely unnecessary from a legal standpoint, but eminently commendable from a human one. I certainly wouldnt think less of someone for not going that far, but I would think more of someone who did.

I'm not sure whether Jock Sturges is the best example to draw a general principle from. After all, many of his subjects are children and hence unable to give their consent in law.

Originally Posted by Wayne

I believe I read that Jock Sturges always asks before he displays a nude photo in a new work, if some time has passed since the work was created. This seems entirely unnecessary from a legal standpoint, but eminently commendable from a human one. I certainly wouldnt think less of someone for not going that far, but I would think more of someone who did.